The High Court held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without recording reasons in writing and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, contrary to Rule 46A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after following the prescribed procedure.
The High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST demand order, holding that the taxpayer should first avail the statutory appeal under Section 107. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that recovery from a retired employee’s dues was unlawful in the absence of fraud, connivance, or misrepresentation. Court, however, permitted authorities to revise pension calculations excluding a pending DPC placement.
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court directed restoration of GST registration even though the statutory appeal had been dismissed as barred by limitation. The relief was made conditional upon filing returns and payment of tax, penalty, and interest.
The case involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-response to a notice. The Court allowed restoration subject to filing returns and payment of tax, penalty, and interest.
Authorities denied GST reimbursement on scrap treating it as non-specified goods. The court found this interpretation inconsistent with the scheme’s definition and exclusion list. The key takeaway is that benefits cannot be denied on grounds not supported by the notification.
High Court allowed restoration of GST registration even after dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds. Relief was granted subject to filing returns and payment of dues.
The High Court upheld a ₹7 lakh addition after finding a major discrepancy between stock recorded in books and the inflated stock statement submitted to the bank.
The Court ruled that when an assessee certifies stock statements given to a bank as accurate and consistent with books, discrepancies can justify tax additions. The explanation that the figures were inflated merely to obtain higher credit was rejected.
The High Court held that only 30 days of limitation survived after applying TOLA and Supreme Court rulings. Notices issued after expiry of the surviving period were declared time-barred.
